Technology, Research, Design, and Social Media

03/03/2012

Economic conditions can force people to take extreme measures. In the book called Transmission, by Hari Kunzru, Arjun gets hired on as a virus technician who gets sub contracted out by another company and is getting paid next to nothing. He tells his family that he is the head of his department and this is were the trouble starts. When Arjun made this decision, it then affected everyone else around him.

Chris, Guy, Lila and others were affected by Arjun’s choice of trying to make it big in America. Instead of swallowing his pride and going back home, he unleashes a computer virus which causes chaos around the world. This computer virus then has an effect on all of the people Arjun knows or does not know. From this, Arjun is actually the virus spreading his self centered attitude around the world and affecting other people’s lives.

Arjun’s virus Lila version 8, messes up EU’s information databases and confuses Guy swift with a known white colored criminal who gets deported. This is similar to today’s viruses who not only rearrange data but also steal credit card and Social Security numbers which can hurt people’s identity’s. We see the damage that such viruses can cause in a world that is dependent on computers for almost everything.

A computer virus spreads like a virus except we do not see what is really spreading behind such malicious code. When computer viruses are released into the wild, human attitudes and emotions are the real viruses getting released onto these computer systems. Guilt, despair, greed, pleasure, revenge, and pain are a few of these human attitudes that get spread when a computer virus goes viral. Looking at this story, Arjun’s desperation and pain gets unleashed on an unsuspecting world which has an effect on everyone around the world. We should ask ourselves the question of “what outcome or effect will our content have on other people when it is released onto the internet?”

02/03/2012

Some of these news people and politicians have had to work hard to make it to the top and some have not. JFK and George Bush Junior did not have to work hard to make it as president due to their families status. Theodore Rossevelt and Harry Truman had to work hard to make it to the top of the political ladder.

The problem is that people forget who they were and how they got into a certain position. Then when a person receives a political position such as senator or president, then the culture in these positions start to thwart their good intentions.

Now with web-based media, politicians have a greater chance of providing a canned or a staff member response to constitutes. This makes them harder to reach and give the people of a country the illusion of communicating with their elected public officials.

Facebook has created new jobs here in the U.S. and abroad in many countries. Just take a look at their job board: http://www.facebook.com/careers/?view=location. When a company files for an IPO, they are seeking to raise more money from investors so that they can expand which will in the end create more jobs.

Zuckerberg is trying to gain investor's confidence so that he can over inflate the company's value between $70 to $100 billion dollars. This is why Zuckerberg said "bring a more honest and transparent dialogue around government that could lead to more direct empowerment of people". In the above statement, he is saying that Facebook helped to give the people of Egypt the ability to remove their president from power which he is using to gain the confidence of investors.

Yes Facebook can help in bringing more attention and dialogue to different situations but it is impossible to claim that any company can bring direct empowerment for people with their governments.

Facebook monitors what people are saying or doing on their platform. This means the government can come knocking on Facebook's door at anytime and subpoena anyone's information. Also, Facebook has and can shutdown people's pages due to content that they deem as not appropriate.

I think Zuckerberg needs to rethink his statement of "more honest and transparent dialogue".

05/04/2011

The middle east has several first and second generation measures to regulate internet access and online activities. This includes laws and regulations, technical filtering, physical restrictions, surveillance and monitoring, and harassment and arrests. There are alot of laws and regulations used to control access which include laws that start with press and publications all the way to Internet and ISP rules and regulations. Ghadafi used several of these methods to try and suppress the anti government protests that broke out in Libya. He threatened to lock people up if they were caught using Facebook to post anti government remarks. He shutdown cellular and internet access through out the country. All of his actions are from laws that are prominent in other Middle East and North African countries who all share the same view of controlling internet content which is seen as insulting or offensive. Here is one example of a current law in Kuwait: "Kuwait's 2006 press law allows the imprisonment of journalists for making references to Islam that are deemed insulting or for articles seen as "against national interests" (Access Controlled, p. 526)."

According to the laws setup in the middle east, Ghadafi has every right in arresting people and shutting down the internet in order to protect "national interests" in Libya. I agree with having laws and filters in place to regulate certain content if it is going to pose a threat or harm someone else. For example, if there is a website that is promoting a terrorist attack on the Libyan government then I think the government has every right in taking action against the site and its owners. The problem with this is what is considered unlawful in the eyes of the Libyan government? Also, why filter the internet to the point of limiting a person's freedom of speech or expression in Libya? Does limiting the access to certain online content, shutting down the internet and arresting people for posting anti government information going to stop the uprising in Libya?

Currently Libya is in a state of turmoil. Rebel forces in cities across Libya are starting a revolution against Ghadafi and the current Libyan government. Ghadafi has retaliated by using the Libyan military to wage a war against his own people. It may seem strange to wage a war against one's own cititzens until we look at the laws, policies and structures in place which allow for these actions. So in the eyes of Ghadafi this could be deemed as a disruption to the state and he is acting with "national interests" in mind. This does not have anything to do with the rules and regulations of content being filtered or blocked on the internet in Libya. But it does point to how the people in Libya are being treated and why they are being treated this way. Since Libya is a authoritarian government the people's rights and freedom of expression will be hampered no matter what they do in this country.

These kind of laws can stifle Libya's economy and which we have seen can lead to a revolution. If people are stifled online then this can have a government start to take away freedoms in real space as well. In the reading I found that countries in the middle east like Libya are blocking sites for political campaigning and social activism. Of course the people in these countries are asking that these restrictions be lifted. Of course these countries are not going to lift these restrictions since they know that the internet is associated with voice and power. Ghadafi understands this and that is why he has not lifted restrictions on the net or changed any of the laws in his country. The worst part about this is that U.S. companies are helping to provide these technological restrictions for these countries so that they can make a profit. It is a shame that content filtering companies do not have a conscience or a concerns about the issues going on in these countries. I think if they did it would have a big impact on how these countries would go about filtering their internet content.

A balance of laws and content filtering must be reached if the middle east along with Libya want to keep peace in their countries. If not, then these governments will continue to experience turmoil and uprisings.

05/01/2011

The internet cannot be controlled by laws or threats that are made by governments. Take the quote from Code 2.0 by Lawrence Lessig, "The claim for cyberspace was not just that government would not regulate cyberspace - it was that government could not regulate cyberspace. Cyberspace was, by nature, unavoidably free. Governments could threaten, but behavior could not be controlled; laws could be passed, but they would have no real effect (Code 2.0, p. 3)."

Ghadafi has made claims that he ‘will crush’ anyone who plots against him and if he catches anyone using Facebook, he will have them imprisoned. He has gone so far as to shutdown the internet and cell phone communications in an attempt to stop the transmission of the revolution infection. The threats can be made and yet even as Ghadafi shuts down the internet in Libya he still cannot control the code which is still broadcasting anti Ghadafi messages.

Even with the attempt to shut off communications other companies like Google have provided speak to tweet and dial up numbers so that people can still communicate even though Ghadafi has cut off communications. So can a government leader stop the spread of dissent on Facebook by making threats of locking up Libyan citizens for posting anti Ghadafi messages on Facebook? Or can his futel attempts to shut off communications really have an effect on controlling the code? The only way Ghadafi could make an impact on the net is if he would hire a group of hackers to create computer code or launch DOS attacks that could shutdown Libyan based Facebook and Twitter pages. Even if he locks up Libyan citizens for using Facebook (whether true or not) what difference would this make in stopping the spread of the anti Ghadafi message through out the net?

The solution to this problem is right in front of him. Instead of trying to shut off or destroy the flow of information coming in and out of Libya, he can embrace it. He could learn more about what is going on in and outside of his country by monitoring communications. For example, he could setup a team of people to look at the different posts online about his country and learn from what is being posted online. Then he could use this information to manipulate the network to his advantage or to find the location of rebels or protests. The more information that is broadcasted online the easier it is to monitor people's conversations or locations.

For example, people use Twitter or Facebook to broadcast where they are by using their cell phone. I found the following tweet when searching for the keyword #Libya on Twitter: @ShababLibya: I would continue to urge all media to head to Sallum in #Egypt, we can provide people in #Benghazi and all East #Libya #Feb17. If we exam the tweet, we can see that @ShababLibya could be informing the media people in Egypt to head to the city of Sallum in Egypt to provide the people in Benghazi and all East Libya Freedom. The #Feb17 keyword is a website for the Libyan Youth Movement which is promoting freedom, democracy and change. So this tweet could be code for an organization of media sources to congregate move to the city of Sallum to provide freedom for the people in Libya. Now if Ghadafi has not suppressed the internet and is paying attention to these forms of communication online then he could be learning alot about this particular tweet. If he knew the code, maybe he could plan to watch the border of Egypt near Sallum to watch where these media sources (journalists) are moving to in order to capture them or to broadcast an anti revolution message in the network. He could also try to shutdown the http://feb17.info/ website by using a team of hackers to launch a DOS attack on the site. Since the Libyan government seems to not be interested in this, then it will continue to be foreign or code to them.

So trying to control the revolution conversation is hard when the way this conversation is being spread is not clear. This conversation has followed a non linear path and has the whole world watching due to the internet and broadcast media. The question now is what happens next and what role will the code continue to have an effect on Libya. Clearly it has helped spread the message of the revolution in Libya and has caused the Libyan government to shut off the internet including other forms of communication. So can the code be controlled or is it just an uncontrollable force that governments will have to deal with?

04/24/2011

"Code will be a central tool in this analysis. It will present the greatest threat to both liberal and libertarian ideals, as well as their greatest promise. We can build, or architect, or code cyberspace to allow those values to disappear. Code is never found; it is only ever made, and only ever made by us. How such programming regulates human interactions...depends on the choices made (Code 2.o, Lawrence Lessig, p. 4)." If we look at the above quote we can see how this applies to the digital code in mobile phones for Contactless Payment systems and how our desire for convenience controls the code that we make to achieve this.

How has the code affected the way we perform transactions? Instead of having to interact with a person with our payment, we can wave our phone across a terminal and pay for services or items. For example, Visa has a payWave wireless payment system trial setup to pay for Subways and Taxis in New York. You need an Iphone or Android phone, an SD Micro card for the Android phone and a case addon for the Iphone. This allows people to walk by the subway terminal and scan their phone to pay the subway fare. The issue with this is that it takes the same amount of time to pull out a credit card and swipe it as it does to access the app on the phone and scan it.

People are wanting technology to provide convenience and have security handled at the same time. In Japan, people can walk by a coke machine and scan their cell phones across a wireless reader which instantly allows them to purchase their item. The issues of security are not that big of a concern since Japan has very sophisticated security measures on their mobile phones. This is why the contactless payment system has been such a big success in Japan. Click here to find out more about Japan's mobile phone security. This kind of technology has created the issue of people wanting convenience and sacrificing their personal information as a result. Just read the comments at the end of the "Visa rolling out payWave mobile phone payments in NY subway and taxis," article which has alot of people question the security in contactless payment systems for mobile phones.

As far as the government developing a set of rules or rights for contactless payment systems will probably not be in the works for a long time. From doing research on this topic, I have found that credit card companies want to gain consumer confidence in using their wireless credit card payment system. As with all payment devices, contactless cards have a number of security features. Contactless runs over the same chip and PIN network as normal credit and debit card transactions, there is a payment limit on single transactions and contactless cards can only be used a certain number of times before customers are asked for their PIN. Contactless debit and credit transactions are protected by the same fraud guarantee as standard transactions.

Under fraud guarantee standards US banks claim to be liable for any fraudulent transactions charged to the contactless cards. However, banks are not liable for the identity theft that the RFID card can encourage. This still presents a big concern for the consumer using their cell phone to pay for products using the contactless payment system. So for now it is the corporations who are managing the security of these devices and not the government. So if your identity is stolen or an illegal transaction was made while using your phone to conduct the transaction, then you have to contact your bank or credit card company to resolve the issue. There is no government agency that can help consumers with this issue. So how do we deal with the identity theft issue that this new technology creates?

To give us security and peace of mind when using contactless payment systems, companies like Visa are using hardware and software to develop more code to secure consumer confidence so that people will continue to use their contactless payment system. According to Visa's website they have several security features offered to protect consumers. Realtime Fraud protection, Transaction Protection, and Zero Liability, are some of the features Visa offers to protect the transaction but not the identity of the person. So if someone gets a persons name, address, phone number and credit card number, the credit card company will take care of the compromised credit card number but not the issue of personal information being stolen. Their are a few organizations that can help consumers with this issue. Life lock and Identity Theft Shield offered by Pre-Paid Legal are the two services that I know of which help track and prevent identity theft for consumers. Until legislation is passed or a government entity is formed specifically to handle this issue, then this is what consumers have to protect their personal identity.

Also, instead of going to the bank, we can now take a picture of our check using an application which is downloaded on our smart phone and send it to our bank which is instantly deposited in our bank account. We can transfer money between accounts or check account balances on the go with our mobile phones by using an app which can be downloaded off of a bank's website.

Calling into a phone system to check balances or transfer money can now be done on the go by using our mobile phones. Our lives have become very automated removing the need for human to human interaction. Instead, 1 and 0's have taken the place of having any real contact with human beings when it comes to electronic transactions. So how else has the mobile phone affected or changed our lives?

Creating a wallet-free future where credit card and banking information will be stored in our cell phones. Then instead of pulling out a credit card to pay for a purchase, people will pay with their cell phone. Instead of going to the bank, people will use their phones. So once companies can make sure financial transactions on mobile phones are completely secure and educate people on how to properly use these new payment or financial systems, then people will be ready for a wallet-free future!

04/18/2011

"To begin with, many of us at some stage in our lives will have taped a CD or TV program, photocopied a book or made use of copied software. For most of us, there is a world of difference between this kind of activity and crimes like rape, murder or the supply of illicit drugs. Intellectual property piracy is just not an issue in the way that safe streets and better policing are issues in the public mind (p. 25 Information Feudalism)."

Pirated software could cause your personal information on your phone to be compromised. According to Matthew J. Schwartz with Information Week, "More than 1 million cell phone users in China has been infected with a virus that automatically sends text messages, and the attack is costing users a combined 2 million yuan ($300,000 U.S.) per day." According to Shanghai Daily, "the 'zombie' virus, hidden in a bogus antivirus application, can send the phone user's SIM card information to hackers, who then remotely control the phone to send URL links."

Some of the sent text messages contain links to more viruses and if you click the link, your phone could likewise be infected. Then other text messages get automatically dispatched to premium-rate phone numbers, generating profits for the attackers while draining subscriber's accounts. According to Zhou Yonglin, an official with China's National Computer Network Emergency Response Team, "about 1 million cell phones had been infected since the beginning of September, and mobile operators were having difficulty eradicating the malicious application, owing to the breakneck pace of new variations appearing."

Also, some people will download a pirated phone app thinking that they will save money by doing so. Instead, they download Android.Walkinwat which is a trojan that not only steals a person's information, it also sends a text message to everyone on the user's cellphone list, telling everyone about the piracy. According to PCWorld, the "Android.Walkinwat adds public humiliation by sending an SMS text message to all of the contacts on the smartphone with the text, ‘Hey, just downloaded a pirate App of the Internet, Walk and Text for Android. Im stupid and cheap, it costed only 1 buck. Don’t steal it like I did!”

It is hard to tell how many people are using pirated apps that may be compromising the security of their cell phones. Estimates of people who are using an app they did not pay for are as high as 97.4% in Asia, 70.1% in Europe, and 43% in North America. So why do people download free apps if it compromises their privacy and is against the law? Probably because to most people software piracy is not a big issue. If you can get something for free then what is the harm? The immediate harm is that a person's private information can be compromised. These viruses can be easily transmitted by being downloaded as normal games, ringtones, phone alerts and updates, then once downloaded these cell phone viruses can do big damage.

For most people, software piracy is not a big crime like committing murder or illicitly selling drugs. Also, if the software is free and very popular then it is one of those "everybody is doing it" attitudes. Pirated games exist because people get a thrill out of cracking games — and because there will always be people who want something for nothing. It is the same thing that happened with the music industry. When music CD's were $20 for a music album, people were gladly downloading their favorite songs for free on sites like Napster and BearShare. Now that people can download their favorite songs for .99$, the desire for illegally downloading music has dramatically decreased.

The same rule holds true for computer software: as long as software designers keep their computer software at a certain price, people will gladly continue to download pirated copies. If the software developers had their products priced at $.99 a download or charged a monthly fee to have access to a particular software program, then software piracy would dramatically decrease.

04/16/2011

"Hence, then, is a large lesson about the relationship between a well-functioning system of free expression and citizen's well-being. Free speech and free press are not mere luxuries or tastes of the most educated classes; they increase the like-lihood that government will actually be serving people's interests (Republic.com 2.0, p. 98)." The above quote taken from the reading of the book Republic 2.0 shows us why there is unrest in Libya. For example, Muhammad Bouazizi set himself on fire in an act to protest against high living costs and joblessness in Tunisia. Then, in Cairo Egypt, a demonstration broke out over high food price inflation, high unemployment, corruption, etc. Now there are demonstrations taking place in Libya. Libya has an unemployment rate of 30% along with the problems of health issues and poverty. As the above quote states, all of this revolves around the issues of freedom of speech and the standard of living costs for citizen's in these arab nation states.

The main question is "What happens after people get their freedom and over throw the pre existing tyrannical leaders?" Egypt right now has removed president Mabarak and most of the people in the government who supported. The military is now in place to keep the country functional until a new civilian government can be elected. This is not the case in Libya. If people were to overthrow Gadaffi, then who would step up to take his place? Would the current military be able to govern the country temporarily? Or would another radical group or tyrannical leader take over?

According to Najla Abdurrahman, a Libyan-American writer and activist, writes, "After all, Libya lacks political institutions which means it could descend into years of bloody civil war. And Libya is full of Muslims so Islamic extremists could take control of a new government and further destabilise the Arab world. Do Libyans even realise where they're headed? Have they forgotten about Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq? Gaddafi is admittedly unpleasant, even brutal, but he has held the country together and kept extremists at bay for decades (Libya: Making something out of nothing, Aljazeera)."

According to the above author, if Gaddafi were to be overthrown, Libya would be in disarray and possibly be taken over by Islamic extremists. So if the anti Gaddafi supporters had Gaddafi removed from office, would a radical group or dictator step into power and still keep the people of Libya oppressed? The problem is this could be a possibility considering the issue of extremist groups within the Islamic communities. If we look back at the beginning of this blog, I took a quote from Cass R Sunstein's Republic 2.0 which stated that "Free speech and free press are not mere luxuries or tastes of the most educated classes; they increase the like-lihood that government will actually be serving people's interests". The people's interests will not be served if a ruler or group comes into power who will still oppress the Libyan people. If the issues of poverty and joblessness are not fixed then the people will still continue to suffer. Cass R. Sunstein is very optimistic that if the freedom of speech and freedom of press are achieved then the government will serve the people's needs. This could have the opposite effect in Libya in that with the people achieving freedom without a structured plan to rebuild, could fall prey to a more oppressive regime or according to Najila "descend into years of bloody civil war". The question is, "will overthrowing Gaddafi give the people what they really want?"

The leaders in these arab countries need to listen to what the people want and make sure people have what is needed to sustain themselves in their daily lives. If people do not have their basic needs meet, then revolutions will continue to take place. When the government starts to suppress or cut off cell phone and internet communication services in response to these demonstrations, then this just adds to the suppression of the people's freedom of speech. If the mentioned arabic countries do not resolve the issues of their people, then they will continue to face uprisings in the name of freedom and democracy.

04/11/2011

When reading the book, "Here Comes Everybody, by Clay Sharky", the first chapter starts off with the story of a Stolen Sidekick cell phone. A woman, Ivanna, lost her phone and a girl by the name of Sasha found the phone and started to use the phone for her own personal use. When Ivanna bought a new phone, all of the information from the lost phone was transferred to her new phone since her cell phone company stored all of her information on their servers. This included all of the recent phone calls made, e-mails sent and pictures taken by Sasha with the stolen Sidekick cell phone.

Ivanna was able to get Sasha's contact information from an e-mail that was sent by Sasha from the stolen phone. When Ivanna contacted Sasha about returning the stolen phone, Sasha refused to return it. Eventually, Ivanna got her stolen cell phone back from Sasha which involved help from a friend and the authorities. The details of how the phone was returned is not important. The question to ask is what if Ivanna had sensitive information on her stolen phone like credit card numbers? Or what if Sasha used Ivanna's phone to prank call or spam the people on her cell phone's contact list? What if Sasha stole Ivanna's identity?

If Ivanna had a password on her phone and immediately had her cell phone provider turn off the service on her stolen phone, then Sasha could not have used the phone which means that Ivanna would have never been able to get her stolen phone back. The benefit to this would be that Sasha would not have access to Ivanna's contact list, pictures, e-mails or any other sensitive information on Ivanna's phone.

Another Example of a cell phone getting compromised is Paris Hilton, who could of had the information on her cell phone stolen in several different ways. According to msnbc.com, a hacker by the name of Jacobsen, hacked a T-mobile server and was able to access Paris Hilton including other celebrities cell phone contacts and e-mails. Some of these e-mails contained pictures of different celebrities which Paris took using her built in camera on her Sidekick mobile phone. He then posted all of this information on the internet until authorities finally caught him and had the information removed.

The other way her information could of been compromised, according to T-mobile, was the weak password question and answers she used for recovering her password. When you reset or recover a password on a T-mobile phone, you have to enter in your cell phone number, username and answer the security question that was created. Then T-mobile allows you to reset your password. The issue here is that if this information is stolen or compromised then resetting the password is way too easy. If the forgotten password or reset link was e-mailed, then this would add another layer of security and possibly stop an account from being exploited. The connection to make between these two stories is the concern of having personal information stored on a cell phone and on a cellular provider's server. The question is how vulnerable is our cellular information and is it safe to store it on a cellular providers server?

T-mobile offers a service called MobileLife which will store all of your contacts information which includes names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, photos, etc. This information is then accessible through T-mobile's website or the account holder's cell phone. So when Ivanna received her new cell phone, the pictures and contacts were loaded back onto the new phone because of the MobileLife service. The danger of this is that having this information online can easily be compromised if a person's password or cell phone is stolen. Is it safe to trust services like MobileLife, if the security measures in place can easily be compromised? Is it safe or secure to have a cell phone company store a person's private information on their servers?

So are cell phones secure or do they allow for people's privacy to be compromised?If several different layers of security are used, then gaining access to a person's information on their cell phone is very hard to do. Using strong passwords, reporting a lost or stolen phone, and not giving out your passwords, are just a few of the ways a person can keep their cell phone information secure (Information Services and Technology, IST, has some great tips on how to keep a cell phone secure). As long as basic security measures or practices are put in place, then this will insure a greater chance of a person's personal information being secured on their cell phone.

04/06/2011

Even though the internet does not stop bombs or regimes, it is interesting how countries now stop the internet and or cell phone service in a country when a demonstration or revolution takes place. For example, the Libyan government, who owns the cell phone and internet service provider companies, shut off these services during the protests. This is the same action that the Egyptian government tried to do which only incited the protestors. Eventually the internet was successful in forcing President Hosni Mubarak out of power and it did so by putting alot of outside pressure on the Egyptian Government.

So, is it true to think that the internet can topple a government? This was not the case in Iran. "But while the manic surrounding the manic Iran's Twitter Revolution helped to crystallize the main tenets of the doctrine, it did not beget those tenets ( The Net Delusion, p. 6)." The Green movement, a group in favor of the opposing presidential canidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, used social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook to help spread the word about their upset and corruption of the 2009 Iranian elections. Even though social networking was used in Iran it was not effective in over throwing the corrupt government. After the protests subsided, the Iranian government used the internet against the Green Movement. "Passport control officers at Tehran's airport asked Iranians living abroad if they had Facebook accounts; they would often double-check online, reagardless of the answer, and proceed to write down amy suspicious-looking online friends a traveler might have (The Net Delusion, p.11)." The Iranian government then came out with a statement that if people were caught with anti government based information on their Twitter or Facebook page's that they would be arrested and tried by the Judiciary.

Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan president, has warned against the use of Facebook and 's security forces have arrested activists who've posted online about the Libyan revolution.

Out of the Iran revolution only a small percentage of people were using Twitter. "98 percent of the most popular links shared on the site during that period were Iran-related. It's just that the vast majority of them were not authored or retweeted by those in Iran" (The Net Delusion, p. 15 ). According to Vahid Online, a prominent Iranian blogger and activist, said that many were led to believe falsely that Iranian people were also getting their news through Twitter."

So if the number of people protesting online inside a country are a very few percentage and if the Iranian government was not toppled, then why has Libya for example shutdown the internet and arrested activists for anti government content on Facebook? We could look at what is being transmitted but the real answer here is that the internet is causing external pressure from the mass media which is causing internal pressure in Libya. Gaddafi is afraid of excessive pressure from outside forces and being toppled as what happened to President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. So shutting down the internet and cell phone service from the Libyan government standpoint seems like part of the solution in quieting the news propaganda.

"Bizarrely, the irresponsible Iran-related punditry in Washington allowed leaders in Beijing to build credible case for more internet censorship in China (The Net Delusion, p.13).""On the contrary, most often it's just unthinking acceptance of conventional wisdom, which posits that since authoritarian governments are censoring the Internet, they must be really afraid of it. Thus, according to this view, the very presence of a vibrant Internet culture greatly increases the odds that such regimes will collapse (The Net Delusion, p.21)."

It is not that the internet is a weapon against tyranical regims and the promotion of Democracy, it is a way of spreading information. Even if the information is not true, the damage can already be done once the information is distributed on the internet. Since anything can be created and distributed on the internet, this is why the internet can be labeled as the perfect propaganda medium that any group, country, or person can use to spread it's message.

If Gandafi wants to react by shutting down the internet and making claims that social media is an imperliast conspiracy then let him. It is just him reacting to the wide spread reach and power of the internet. In the end, it is humerous how some countries will bad mouth the internet and yet at the same time use it to forward their own agendas!